The Debilitating Effect of Taking Genesis Literally

[Diogenes]

The proposition for debate is that when one takes the tales of Genesis literally, one becomes intellectually disabled, at least temporarily. Taking Genesis literally requires one to reject biology (which includes evolution) and other sciences in favor of 'magic.' Geology and radiometric dating have to be rejected since the Earth formed only about 6000 years ago, during the same week the Earth was made (in a single day).

Much of the debate in the topic of Science and Religion consists of theists who insist on a literal interpretation of Genesis rejecting basic science. Most of the resulting debates are not worth engaging in.

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to The Barbarian in post #0]

How lumpy does this paper say the universe is? What temperature difference does this paper predict? The anisotropies that were discovered are smaller than predicted.

Lumpy enough to produce stars. That was the prediction, which is now verified.

No, that prediction is not verified. Because the anisotropies discovered were smaller than predicted. This actually falsifies the theory that anisotropies produce stars. Because there should not be as many stars and galaxies as we see.

Inflation was proposed to solve the horizon problem in the big bang theory. The big bang theory predicts an isotropic and flat universe.
In the 1970s, when I learned about it, it did not. Can you show us some evidence for your assumption?

Not sure what you are asking here. But have you not heard of Alan Guth?

The inflation theory predicts that any asymmetries in the universe existing before inflation would be wiped out by the vast expansion during inflation. “The most decisive observational evidence against inflation would be provided by evidence that the Universe possesses large-scale rotation,” wrote Barrow and Liddle in a 1997 paper. https://arxiv.org/pdf/gr-qc/9705048.pdf
They were pointing out potential ways that one could falsify inflation theory:

I was not talking about their paper. I was talking about finding evidence of large-scale rotation.

• Astronomers discover largest known spinning structures in the universe https://www.space.com/largest-spinning- ... discovered

The big question is, "Why do they spin?" Libeskind said. The Big Bang would not have endowed the universe with any primordial spin. As such, whatever caused these filaments to spin must have originated later in history as the structures formed, he said.

One possible explanation for this rotation is that as the powerful gravitational fields of these filaments pulled gas, dust and other material within them to collapse together, the resulting shearing forces might have spun up this material.
ibid
Not what you seem to have thought it was.

I do not think you understand how the game is played. A researcher cannot say that the big bang theory or inflation has been falsified, without offering some suggestion to save it. Libeskind does not know why it is spinning.

The big bang theory is based on two assumptions:
Hmm... let's take a look...

Ok, Let's take a look:

• The standard Big Bang theory is based on the assumption that the Universe is, on sufficiently large scales, homogeneous and isotropic. This assumption goes under the grand-sounding name of the cosmological principle. https://ned.ipac.caltech.edu/level5/Glo ... oprbm.html

• The models depend on two major assumptions: the universality of physical laws and the cosmological principle. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang

• Two explicit assumptions are made in the Big Bang cosmological model. The first is that the observed shift of features in galaxy spectra to redder wavelengths at greater distances is really due to a motion away from us and not to some other cosmological effect. This is equivalent to saying the redshifts are Doppler shifts and the universe is expanding. The second assumption is a basic principle that the universe looks the same from all observing points. This Cosmological Principle is equivalent to saying the universe is homogeneous (the same everywhere) and isotropic (the same in all directions). This is the ultimate Copernican Principle that the Earth, Sun, and Milky Way Galaxy are not in a special place in the universe. https://www.cliffsnotes.com/study-guide ... ang-theory

• Foundations of the Big Bang
  An infinitely dense and hot Universe in the past follows naturatlly from three basic physical assumptions:
  General Relativity is valid on cosmic scales.
  The Universe is homogeneous and isotropic on cosmic scales.
  The energy of the vacuum is either zero or very small (the Cosmological Constant: L)
  All of these assumptions are testable observationally. https://www.astronomy.ohio-state.edu/po ... bbang.html

The cosmological principle is usually stated formally as 'Viewed on a sufficiently large scale, the properties of the universe are the same for all observers.' This amounts to the strongly philosophical statement that the part of the universe which we can see is a fair sample, and that the same physical laws apply throughout. In essence, this in a sense says that the universe is knowable and is playing fair with scientists
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmological_principle
The anisotropic early universe that you are suggesting ie a lumpy universe with a preferred direction falsifies the second assumption of the big bang theory.

So if the universe is not fair and the laws of physics are not the same throughout the universe, then the universe is not knowable anyway and no theory would be able to predict it. I have already seen rumblings along these lines and I would not be surprised if there was a belief that the cosmological constant is not true. That the laws of physics do change. Because current theories cannot explain observations.

You don't want to believe that it's the same, because giant redwoods don't invalidate your new religious doctrines.

No, because observation trumps theory.

Far too long for a human to notice it all. But we can see stars in various stages of development.

A redwood reaches full height in thousands of years.

Far too long for a human to notice it all. But we can see redwoods in various stages of development.

No, a redwood reaches maturity in 65 years. But we are not even talking about reaching maturity we are talking about a seedling coming up out of the grounds.

I know you want to believe so. But cosmologists know otherwise.

No, they really do not.

• Star formation is one of the least understood phenomena in cosmic evolution. It is difficult to formulate a general theory for star formation in part because of the wide range of physical processes involved. The interstellar gas out of which stars form is a supersonically-turbulent, weakly-ionized plasma governed by non-ideal magnetohydrodynamics (MHD). https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/a ... 731400009X

As you learned, that's wrong. Most irregular galaxies are transitional stages between spiral and elliptical galaxies. Would you like to learn how we know this?

I notice that the earliest known galaxy, GN-z11, is an irregular galaxy. But you should probably know this...
Many astronomers think that irregular galaxies are the ‘in-between’ for spiral and elliptical galaxies. Based on the ages, it’s likely that galaxies start as young spiral galaxies. Once they’ve been around for a while, they turn into irregular galaxies by colliding into other galaxies. At this point they are in their ‘teenage years’. Even later, after using up all their dust and gas to make new stars, they become old elliptical galaxies.

https://askanearthspacescientist.asu.ed ... r-galaxies

[/quote]

Depends on whether you are describing a bottom-up formation or a top-down formation. Because this guy says that irregular is the youngest.

• Ellipticals, which account for about one-third of galaxies observed, vary from nearly circular to very elongated. They possess comparatively little gas and dust, contain older stars and are not actively forming stars anymore. The largest and rarest of these, called giant ellipticals, are about 300,000 light-years across. Astronomers theorize that these are formed by the mergers of smaller galaxies. Much more common are dwarf ellipticals, which are only a few thousand light-years wide.
  
  Spiral galaxies appear as flat, blue-white disks of stars, gas and dust with yellowish bulges in their centers. These galaxies are divided into two groups: normal spirals and barred spirals. In barred spirals, the bar of stars runs through the central bulge. The arms of barred spirals usually start at the end of the bar instead of from the bulge. Spirals are actively forming stars and comprise a large fraction of all the galaxies in the local universe.
  
  Irregular galaxies, which have very little dust, are neither disk-like nor elliptical. Astronomers often see irregular galaxies as they peer deeply into the universe, which is equivalent to looking back in time. These galaxies are abundant in the early universe before spirals and ellipticals developed. https://hubblesite.org/science/galaxies ... 0developed.

In a bottom-up scenario since irregulars are the smallest then irregulars would be considered the youngest. In a top-down a large elliptical would be the first. https://pressbooks.online.ucf.edu/astro ... 20scenario.

The James Webb Space Telescope (JWST) has transformed our view of the iconic Pillars of Creation, which are 6500 light years away in the much larger Eagle Nebula. While these towering clouds of dust and gas look like solid cosmic stalagmites in the classic images from the Hubble Space Telescope, JWST images reveal the stars forming within them.

JWST is able to see through the dust because it observes in infrared wavelengths of light, as opposed to visible light that Hubble mostly uses. Infrared light pierces through the clouds of dust and gas to show the young stars that have just formed or are still forming in this stellar nursery
https://www.newscientist.com/article/23 ... -creation/
y-theories-of-the-early-universe-180981689/

No, No, No, they are called starburst galaxies. They are identified by a blue color because all of the blue stars "forming" is how the story goes. So all of these early galaxies should be starburst galaxies or a least a fair majority of them should be. If this is truly the early universe we are observing. Not just one percent.

[The Barbarian]

The anisotropies that were discovered are smaller than predicted.

But you don't have any link? And as you know, a verified prediction like this is confirmation of a theory.

No, that prediction is not verified.

But it is. As you said, others objected, saying the big bang would have to be isotropic, but the predicted anisotropies were verified.

Because there should not be as many stars and galaxies as we see.

Show us evidence for that assumption.

Inflation was proposed to solve the horizon problem in the big bang theory. The big bang theory predicts an isotropic and flat universe.

In the 1970s, when I learned about it, it did not. Can you show us some evidence for your assumption?

Not sure what you are asking here.

Just so we're clear, do we now agree that our sun will not go nova?


I'm asking for some evidence. As you have seen, the theory does not predict an istropic universe.

The James Webb Space Telescope, not even finished with its first full year of observations, has delivered some real stunners. But amid the breathtaking images and unprecedented findings, there was a puzzling claim: that the telescope had detected galaxies in the incredibly young universe. Those galaxies were so massive and appeared so early that they, the headlines claimed, "broke" the Big Bang model of cosmology.

The claim went viral, but as with many things on the internet, it's simply not true.

Now, there's more research to back up the Big Bang. Recently, researchers took a more careful look at the data and determined that the distant galaxies discovered by the James Webb Space Telescope are, indeed, perfectly compatible with our modern understanding of cosmology.

The potential problem with distant galaxies isn't that they exist. In fact, the modern formulation of the Big Bang theory, called ΛCDM cosmology (the Λ stands for dark energy, and CDM is short for "cold dark matter"), predicts galaxies to appear in the very young universe. That's because billions of years ago, there were no galaxies, or even stars, at all. When our universe was much smaller and much denser than it is today, everything was much more uniform, with only tiny density differences appearing here and there randomly.

But over time, those density differences grew, with the slightly denser pockets pulling more material onto them. Over hundreds of millions of years, those pockets formed into the first stars, and eventually grew to become the first galaxies.

In fact, one of the main goals of the Webb telescope was to discover and characterize those first galaxies, so finding galaxies in the incredibly young universe is a point in favor of the Big Bang theory, not against it.

So what's the conflict, then? The apparent tension came about because of the estimated masses of those galaxies. Several were quite large — well over 10^10 solar masses. That is still much smaller than the Milky Way, but for the early universe, they are quite gigantic.

The researchers who discovered these galaxies estimated that their large masses put them in tension with many models of galactic formation and evolution. At the extreme end, the researchers claimed that it might even be possible for no galaxy formation model within the ΛCDM framework to create such large galaxies so quickly.
https://www.space.com/james-webb-space- ... -explained

Go read the rest of it, and learn/

The inflation theory predicts that any asymmetries in the universe existing before inflation would be wiped out by the vast expansion during inflation.

See above. Any anisotropies early on, would be magnified over time.


“The most decisive observational evidence against inflation would be provided by evidence that the Universe possesses large-scale rotation,” wrote Barrow and Liddle in a 1997 paper. https://arxiv.org/pdf/gr-qc/9705048.pdf They were pointing out potential ways that one could falsify inflation theory: But of course, the universe does not show such rotations.

The big question is, "Why do they spin?" Libeskind said. The Big Bang would not have endowed the universe with any primordial spin.

You're assuming no anisotropies at that point, which as you see, is a false assumption.

One possible explanation for this rotation is that as the powerful gravitational fields of these filaments pulled gas, dust and other material within them to collapse together, the resulting shearing forces might have spun up this material.
ibid

Not what you seem to have thought it was.

I do not think you understand how the game is played. A researcher cannot say that the big bang theory or inflation has been falsified, without offering some suggestion to save it.

Sounds more like creationism. At any rate, the base assumption of creationists has been since falsified.

The big bang theory is based on two assumptions:
Hmm... let's take a look...

Ok, Let's take a look:

• The standard Big Bang theory is based on the assumption that the Universe is, on sufficiently large scales, homogeneous and isotropic. This assumption goes under the grand-sounding name of the cosmological principle. https://ned.ipac.caltech.edu/level5/Glo ... oprbm.html
  
  The models depend on two major assumptions: the universality of physical laws and the cosmological principle.
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang
  

  Two explicit assumptions are made in the Big Bang cosmological model. The first is that the observed shift of features in galaxy spectra to redder wavelengths at greater distances is really due to a motion away from us and not to some other cosmological effect.

  Which is a well-demonstrated phenomenon. Objects moving away from us are red-shifted. Do you see why distant object in an expanding universe would be moving faster from our POV?
  

  The second assumption is a basic principle that the universe looks the same from all observing points.

  The Cosmological Principle is equivalent to saying the universe is homogeneous (the same everywhere) and isotropic (the same in all directions), given a large enough scale...
  
  The definition of homogeneous strongly depends on the context used. For example, a composite material is made up of different individual materials, known as "constituents" of the material, but may be defined as a homogeneous material when assigned a function. For example, asphalt paves our roads, but is a composite material consisting of asphalt binder and mineral aggregate, and then laid down in layers and compacted. However, homogeneity of materials does not necessarily mean isotropy. In the previous example, a composite material may not be isotropic.
  
  In another context, a material is not homogeneous in so far as it is composed of atoms and molecules. However, at the normal level of our everyday world, a pane of glass, or a sheet of metal is described as glass, or stainless steel. In other words, these are each described as a homogeneous material.
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmological_principle
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homogeneity_(physics)
  

  This is the ultimate Copernican Principle that the Earth, Sun, and Milky Way Galaxy are not in a special place in the universe.

  Perhaps you haven't seen what Copernicus actually wrote.
  
  The cosmological principle is usually stated formally as 'Viewed on a sufficiently large scale, the properties of the universe are the same for all observers.' This amounts to the strongly philosophical statement that the part of the universe which we can see is a fair sample, and that the same physical laws apply throughout. In essence, this in a sense says that the universe is knowable and is playing fair with scientists
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmological_principle
  

  The anisotropic early universe that you are suggesting ie a lumpy universe with a preferred direction falsifies the second assumption of the big bang theory.

  You've just assumed that the lumpiness is somehow itself lumpy. The evidence shows that the anisotropy was pretty much the same everywhere.
  

  You don't want to believe that it's the same, because giant redwoods don't invalidate your new religious doctrines.

  No, because observation trumps theory.

  The same observations of redwoods at different stages of growth as the observations of stars at different stages of formation, trumps the creationist assumptions, yes.
  
  Far too long for a human to notice it all. But we can see stars in various stages of development.
  
  A redwood reaches full height in thousands of years.
  
  Far too long for a human to notice it all. But we can see redwoods in various stages of development.[
  

  No

  Yes. It takes thousands of years for a redwood to reach full size. No point in denying the fact.
  

  But we are not even talking about reaching maturity we are talking about a seedling coming up out of the grounds.

  Nope. We're talking about a redwood seedling growing to a full-height giant redwood tree. Thousands of years.
  
  I know you want to believe so. But cosmologists know otherwise.
  

  No, they really do not.

  Comes down to evidence. So they win.
  
  Many astronomers think that irregular galaxies are the ‘in-between’ for spiral and elliptical galaxies. Based on the ages, it’s likely that galaxies start as young spiral galaxies. Once they’ve been around for a while, they turn into irregular galaxies by colliding into other galaxies. At this point they are in their ‘teenage years’. Even later, after using up all their dust and gas to make new stars, they become old elliptical galaxies.
  https://askanearthspacescientist.asu.ed ... r-galaxies[/quote]
  
  The James Webb Space Telescope (JWST) has transformed our view of the iconic Pillars of Creation, which are 6500 light years away in the much larger Eagle Nebula. While these towering clouds of dust and gas look like solid cosmic stalagmites in the classic images from the Hubble Space Telescope, JWST images reveal the stars forming within them.
  
  JWST is able to see through the dust because it observes in infrared wavelengths of light, as opposed to visible light that Hubble mostly uses. Infrared light pierces through the clouds of dust and gas to show the young stars that have just formed or are still forming in this stellar nursery
  https://www.newscientist.com/article/23 ... -creation/
  y-theories-of-the-early-universe-180981689/
  

  No, No, No, they are called starburst galaxies.

  The "Pillars of creation" aren't galaxies at all. They are tiny, compared to galaxies. They are only about five light-years long.

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to The Barbarian in post #0]

The anisotropies that were discovered are smaller than predicted.

In his 1999 book, Seeing Red: Redshifts, Cosmology and AcademicScience, Dr. Arp noted that in spite of these extremely slight irregularities of 1 part in 100,000, the background radiation is still too smooth to account for the
clumpiness of the Universe (p. 237)

Arp said this because it was calculated that to give us the universe with as much matter in it as we have 1 part in 10,000 was needed. Rowan-Robinson, M., Dark doubts for cosmology, New Scientist 129:24–28, 1991.

But it is. As you said, others objected, saying the big bang would have to be isotropic, but the predicted anisotropies were verified.

As you have learned again, I am speaking of the amount. The predicted amount was 10 times higher than what it was.

Just so we're clear, do we now agree that our sun will not go nova?

In my class, it will still go nova. As far as I know, the process of ejecting the out layers of a small star has no name so I gave it a name. Nova. You can call it whatever it is you want to call it.

I'm asking for some evidence. As you have seen, the theory does not predict an isotropic universe.

What theory are you talking about? If it is the big bang theory isotropic universe on large scale is a basic assumption of the theory.

The James Webb Space Telescope, not even finished with its first full year of observations, has delivered some real stunners. But amid the breathtaking images and unprecedented findings, there was a puzzling claim: that the telescope had detected galaxies in the incredibly young universe. Those galaxies were so massive and appeared so early that they, the headlines claimed, "broke" the Big Bang model of cosmology.

The claim went viral, but as with many things on the internet, it's simply not true.

Now, there's more research to back up the Big Bang. Recently, researchers took a more careful look at the data and determined that the distant galaxies discovered by the James Webb Space Telescope are, indeed, perfectly compatible with our modern understanding of cosmology.

The potential problem with distant galaxies isn't that they exist. In fact, the modern formulation of the Big Bang theory, called ΛCDM cosmology (the Λ stands for dark energy, and CDM is short for "cold dark matter"), predicts galaxies to appear in the very young universe. That's because billions of years ago, there were no galaxies, or even stars, at all. When our universe was much smaller and much denser than it is today, everything was much more uniform, with only tiny density differences appearing here and there randomly.

But over time, those density differences grew, with the slightly denser pockets pulling more material onto them. Over hundreds of millions of years, those pockets formed into the first stars, and eventually grew to become the first galaxies.

In fact, one of the main goals of the Webb telescope was to discover and characterize those first galaxies, so finding galaxies in the incredibly young universe is a point in favor of the Big Bang theory, not against it.

So what's the conflict, then? The apparent tension came about because of the estimated masses of those galaxies. Several were quite large — well over 10^10 solar masses. That is still much smaller than the Milky Way, but for the early universe, they are quite gigantic.

The researchers who discovered these galaxies estimated that their large masses put them in tension with many models of galactic formation and evolution. At the extreme end, the researchers claimed that it might even be possible for no galaxy formation model within the ΛCDM framework to create such large galaxies so quickly.
https://www.space.com/james-webb-space- ... -explained

Yea, but one-month later space evidently thought that cosmology was broken. I think Sutter was in dreamland when he wrote his article.

• The James Webb Space Telescope discovers enormous distant galaxies that should not exist https://www.space.com/james-webb-space- ... s-surprise

• The Webb telescope finds surprisingly massive galaxies from the universe's youth https://www.npr.org/2023/02/22/11587938 ... s-big-bang

• The James Webb telescope found six galaxies that may be too hefty for their age https://www.sciencenews.org/article/jam ... laxies-old

• James Webb telescope uncovers giant galaxies near Big Bang https://www.dw.com/en/james-webb-telesc ... a-64790588

• Galaxies spotted by Webb telescope rewrite understanding of early universe https://www.reuters.com/lifestyle/scien ... 023-02-22/

“The most decisive observational evidence against inflation would be provided by evidence that the Universe possesses large-scale rotation,” wrote Barrow and Liddle in a 1997 paper. https://arxiv.org/pdf/gr-qc/9705048.pdf They were pointing out potential ways that one could falsify inflation theory: But of course, the universe does not show such rotations.
The big question is, "Why do they spin?" Libeskind said. The Big Bang would not have endowed the universe with any primordial spin.
You're assuming no anisotropies at that point, which as you see, is a false assumption.

No, I am pointing out that inflation has been falsified according to Barrow and Liddle.

One possible explanation for this rotation is that as the powerful gravitational fields of these filaments pulled gas, dust and other material within them to collapse together, the resulting shearing forces might have spun up this material.

A possible explanation does not mean anything. Because on the large scale, the universe is supposed to be isotropic and homogeneous. This falsifies both inflation and Big Bang.

The big bang theory is falsified on so many fronts I am not sure how long it can remain a plausible theory.

• “Based on our cluster observations we may have found differences in how fast the Universe is expanding depending on which way we looked,” said Dr. Gerrit Schellenberger, an astronomer in the Harvard & Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics.
  
  “This would contradict one of the most basic underlying assumptions we use in cosmology today.”https://www.sci.news/astronomy/anisotro ... 08312.html

• A new study of galaxy clusters suggests the cosmos may not be the same in all directions https://www.scientificamerican.com/arti ... universe1/

It takes thousands of years for a redwood to reach full size. No point in denying the fact.

Who is denying that fact and who really cares? We are talking about the birth of a star. Seed to seedling which takes about a month.

No, No, No, they are called starburst galaxies.
The "Pillars of creation" aren't galaxies at all. They are tiny, compared to galaxies. They are only about five light-years long.

The type of galaxies where massive star formation happens are called "starburst" galaxies. James Web has not really seen that many young galaxies. But it has seen large old galaxies which should not be that is what broke cosmology.

[The Barbarian]

Just so we're clear, do we now agree that our sun will not go nova?

As far as I know, the process of ejecting the out layers of a small star has no name so I gave it a name. Nova.

It's called "mass ejection." Nova already has a definition.

A nova (PL: novae or novas) is a transient astronomical event that causes the sudden appearance of a bright, apparently "new" star (hence the name "nova", which is Latin for "new") that slowly fades over weeks or months.

A red giant developing out out a yellow dwarf does not appear suddenly and does not fade over thousands or millions of years.

And I get that you disagree with astrophysicsts on cosmology. But I find them and their evidence more persuasive.

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to The Barbarian in post #1034]

It's called "mass ejection." Nova already has a definition.

So does "mass ejection" and it really does not describe what is going on. Nova can be related to a supernova because a similar process is going on just not in an explosive way. In both processes, the star is shedding its outer layers and leaving a small star.

And I get that you disagree with astrophysicsts on cosmology. But I find them and their evidence more persuasive.

Are you going to be saying the same thing when the big bang theory switches to a steady-state theory? I would say this should occur in the next 10 to 20 years at least. The big bang theory is becoming untenable even for atheist cosmologists. Then we will be discussing things like why are there so few supernovas and how to conserve entropy. So until then.

[The Barbarian]

It's called "mass ejection." Nova already has a definition.

So does "mass ejection" and it really does not describe what is going on.

Well, let's take a look...
When a main sequence star less than eight times the Sun’s mass runs out of hydrogen in its core, it starts to collapse because the energy produced by fusion is the only force fighting gravity’s tendency to pull matter together. But squeezing the core also increases its temperature and pressure, so much so that its helium starts to fuse into carbon, which also releases energy. Hydrogen fusion begins moving into the star’s outer layers, causing them to expand. The result is a red giant, which would appear more orange than red. Eventually, the red giant becomes unstable and begins pulsating, periodically expanding and ejecting some of its atmosphere.
https://universe.nasa.gov/stars/types/

Nova can be related to a supernova because a similar process is going on just not in an explosive way.

Well, let's take a look...

A nova will occur when a white dwarf consumes too much energy from its binary companion star. This causes nuclear fusion on the white dwarfs surface, momentarily inducing a very bright energy outburst on the stellar remnant’s exterior. When the surface of a white dwarf heats up to around 20,000 degrees Celsius the nuclear fusion process will activate, allowing it to act as if it were the core of an active star again.

The energy produced is significant, where it ejects resources in the region of 100,000 times more powerful than the white dwarfs typical cycle. This excess energy needs to be ejected out otherwise it wouldn’t be able to conserve its form. That’s why the exterior explodes creating what we now refer to as a nova explosion, an explosion that has been observed to increase in brightness over the course of a few months. Some white dwarfs tend to have nova outbursts a few times a century, while others are rarer. Ultimately for the explosion to occur, it will depend on how much hydrogen can be provided by a white dwarfs red giant companion star.

Black holes and neutron stars are what remains after a supernova explosion occurs, which in turn means that this explosion is the process followed when a star dies. It will then be classified as a type 1 supernova if it leaves no hydrogen line emissions in the spectra and would be type 2 if it does produce hydrogen line emissions when a star dies.

There are two ways that a supernova explosion can form.

It can either be via a white dwarf in a binary star system that accumulates too much energy from its companion star causing it to explode or when a larger star runs out of nuclear fuel and collapses under its own gravity, leaving behind the bright and grandiose remnants of this explosion many times brighter than even its own galaxy.
https://scopethegalaxy.com/nova-vs-supernova/

As you see, the mass ejection seen from red giants fits neither of these.

And I get that you disagree with astrophysicsts on cosmology. But I find them and their evidence more persuasive.

Are you going to be saying the same thing when the big bang theory switches to a steady-state theory?

Will I continue to say that pigs can't fly when they start flying? I suppose not. Until then...

I would say this should occur in the next 10 to 20 years at least.

The Steady State Theory:
The 20th - century theory was proposed by Hoyle,Gold and Bondie. The theory is based on the Perfect Cosmological Principle which states that universe has no change in its appearance and is homogeneous. It is isotropic in nature. When an old star dies,new star replaces it. So everything remains the same . According to the theory, the universe has neither any beginning nor any end. Universe was and will always the same through the whole time.
...
In 1963 Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson, studying the sky's microwave "noise" for Bell Telephone Laboratories, realized that they had detected microwaves coming from all around the sky, a universal background radiation. Robert Dicke, a physicist nearby at Princeton University, learned of the measurement and in 1965 correctly interpreted it as radiation of about 3 degrees Kelvin, left over from the big bang. Dicke had not known about Alpher and Herman's prediction, and had independently thought of the cosmic background radiation. Even before learning of Penzias and Wilson's observation, Dicke had set his former student James Peebles to work on calculating the nature of this radiation. Only later was Alpher and Herman's predition recovered and appreciated.
...
The minority who still preferred steady-state theory were not convinced that the big bang had been detected. Couldn't Penzias and Wilson's single observation have some other explanation? Hoyle argued that the radiation could come from interaction between stellar radiation and interstellar needle-shaped grains of iron. Only a number of measurements at different frequencies could confirm that the radiation had the properties predicted for a remnant of the big bang. It was not until the early 1970s that techniques advanced enough to make these measurements, bringing abundant confirmation.

For most purposes, however, the debate between the big bang and the steady state was over in 1965, with big bang the clear winner. Steady-state advocates were reduced to making ad hoc arguments of little plausibility, and they were increasingly marginalized.
https://physics.stackexchange.com/quest ... ate-theory

Steady-state appealed to an atheist like Hoyle, because the Big Bang suggested a creation, and because Steady-state ruled out a singularly eternal God.

[JoeMama]

[Replying to Diogenes in post #1]

Years ago I participated in an Inerrancy debate forum. The forum creator, a 70-year-old former Church of Christ minister and English teacher named Farrell Till, and others in his age bracket, for years ganged up on a persistent believer named Rudy who ignored all evidence against the inerrancy of the Bible.

Folks assumed he was a mature, but misguided, adult, but it turned out he was a lonely, taught-at-home, insecure fifteen-year-old, who apparently loved all the attention lavished on him by unbelievers. None of his few friends played with him, but an army of skeptics couldn't wait for his next post so they could show off their skills in revealing to him how foolish his blindly-faithful beliefs were, and how proud they were when yet again his beliefs were, in their minds, crushed.

I think there are members of this forum who are like Rudy, and even more like his antagonists.

Arguing with those who are blindly faithful is, indeed, a waste of time.

[The Barbarian]

[Replying to Diogenes in post #1]

Years ago I participated in an Inerrancy debate forum. The forum creator, a 70-year-old former Church of Christ minister and English teacher named Farrell Till, and others in his age bracket, for years ganged up on a persistent believer named Rudy who ignored all evidence against the inerrancy of the Bible.

Folks assumed he was a mature, but misguided, adult, but it turned out he was a lonely, taught-at-home, insecure fifteen-year-old, who apparently loved all the attention lavished on him by unbelievers. None of his few friends played with him, but an army of skeptics couldn't wait for his next post so they could show off their skills in revealing to him how foolish his blindly-faithful beliefs were, and how proud they were when yet again his beliefs were, in their minds, crushed.

I think there are members of this forum who are like Rudy, and even more like his antagonists.

Arguing with those who are blindly faithful is, indeed, a waste of time.

It seems to me that earthscienceguy is attempting to defend his beliefs with scientific arguments, not blind belief. However faulty we might judge them to be, it is very different than blind faith in a particular interpretation of scripture. Furthermore, while the two people arguing might not budge in their ideas, there are others watching who might gain from the discussion. Often that happens to me when I'm not directly involved in a discussion here. I probably should thank people more often than I do.

[JoeMama]

[Replying to Diogenes in post #9]

Why would the omnipotent God rely on text and fire-side stories to teach man about God's love? He could instantly embed in the DNA of all humans a perfect, enduring understanding of all things that he wishes us to know, and there would be no need for forums such as this one. Nothing would be unclear, nothing to debate.

[The Barbarian]

[Replying to Diogenes in post #9]

Why would the omnipotent God rely on text and fire-side stories to teach man about God's love? He could instantly embed in the DNA of all humans a perfect, enduring understanding of all things that he wishes us to know, and there would be no need for forums such as this one. Nothing would be unclear, nothing to debate.

Some possible reasons:
1. There is no God out there.
2. God loves us and wants each of us to freely love Him of our own volition, which would be difficult if He was unambiguously evident.
3. Humans are wired to be receptive to God, as evidenced by the near-universal acceptance of a creator being in human cultures.
" From ancient times down to the present, there is found among various peoples a certain perception of that hidden power which hovers over the course of things and over the events of human history; at times some indeed have come to the recognition of a Supreme Being, or even of a Father. This perception and recognition penetrates their lives with a profound religious sense.

Religions, however, that are bound up with an advanced culture have struggled to answer the same questions by means of more refined concepts and a more developed language. Thus in Hinduism, men contemplate the divine mystery and express it through an inexhaustible abundance of myths and through searching philosophical inquiry. They seek freedom from the anguish of our human condition either through ascetical practices or profound meditation or a flight to God with love and trust. Again, Buddhism, in its various forms, realizes the radical insufficiency of this changeable world; it teaches a way by which men, in a devout and confident spirit, may be able either to acquire the state of perfect liberation, or attain, by their own efforts or through higher help, supreme illumination. Likewise, other religions found everywhere try to counter the restlessness of the human heart, each in its own manner, by proposing "ways," comprising teachings, rules of life, and sacred rites."
Nostra Aetate
https://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_cou ... te_en.html

Probably others. Seems to me that no. 3 is a pretty good description of what you have suggested might have happened. Perhaps God is less of a sea-lawyer than humans tend to be, and cares more about the spirit of the truth than specific doctrines.